Comment by jerf
4 hours ago
You can, without loss of generality, simply insert "holding the language constant" if you like into the essay without losing the point I am trying to make, where the question of what language to choose is mostly orthogonal to the point I'm making in that particular essay.
In other contexts I'm a huge proponent of validating that your language is fast enough. There's a constant low-level flow of "we switched from X to Y and got Z% speedup" articles on HN, and while the details of the articles are often quite interesting, with rare exceptions I find that I read them and conclude that it was an error to ever have used X in the first place and the team should have been able to tell immediately that it wasn't going to be a good solution. Exceptions include "we were a startup at the time and experienced rather substantial growth" and the rare cases where technology X is just that much faster for some particular reason... though probably not being a "scripting language" as nowadays I'm not particularly convinced they're all that much faster to develop with past the first week, but something more like "X had a high-level but slow library that did 90% of what we needed but when we really, really needed that last 10% we had no choice but to spend person-years more time getting that last 10% of functionality, so we went with Y anyhow for the speed".
You make an assumption here that the software is also constant or static.
> There's a constant low-level flow of "we switched from X to Y and got Z% speedup" articles on HN, and while the details of the articles are often quite interesting, with rare exceptions I find that I read them and conclude that it was an error to ever have used X in the first place and the team should have been able to tell immediately that it wasn't going to be a good solution.
The language X was probably a good solution at first. Then the company started to increase its product surface or acquired enterprise customers. Now you have new workloads that were not considered and the language is no longer suited for it.
Most likely a decision is made to not introduce a second language to the company just for these new workloads as that complicates the architecture, not to mention hiring and managing, so you stay with language X and try to make do. Now you have language X doing more than it is suited for and response times often increase due to that.
This isn't really a case of startup growing pains, just that software itself cannot know ahead of time every application it'll have. You can choose a "mostly fast for all use cases" language and bet that your applications will fit those general use cases, this means you win small but also lose small.
> The language X was probably a good solution at first.
I would contest even that. Most of the time it's a fight or flight response by the devs, meaning that they just go with whatever they are most comfortable with.
In the previous years I made good money from switching companies away from Python and Rails, to Elixir and Golang. The gains were massive and maintainability also improved a lot.
Of course, this is not advocacy for these technologies in particular. Use the right tool for the job is a popular adage for good reasons. But my point is: people don't use the right tool for the job as often as many believe. Mostly it's gut feelings and familiarity.
And btw I am not trashing on overworked CTOs opting for Python because they never had the time to learn better web tech. I get their pain and sympathise with it a lot. But the failing of most startup CTOs that I observed was that they fell into control mania and micro-management as opposed to learning to delegate and trust. Sadly that too is a function of being busy and overworked so... I don't know. I feel for them but I still want better informed tech decisions being made. At my age and experience I am extremely tired and weary of seeing people make all the same mistakes every time.
Between Python and Elixir or Golang, I’ll stick with Python for an exploratory side project.
It’s just a better fit when you’re not quite sure what you’re building. You just gain more on the 99% of projects that never go anywhere than you lose on the one that you end up trying to turn into a real product. So calling them better web tech assumes a lot about the development process that isn’t guaranteed.
5 replies →